JUDGMENT V.K. Khanna and R.P. Singh, JJ. - These four connected writ petitions raise similar questions regarding admissions of the petitioners to the B.Sc. (Ag.) course in the Tilak Dhan College, Jaunpur which is affiliated to the Gorakhpur University. 2. The brief facts for the purposes of deciding the present writ petitions are that for the academic session 1985-86 admissions to the B.Sc. (Ag.) year course were made by publishing a list (hereinafter referred to as the first list) round about 26th August, 1985. The petitioners in these four connected writ petitions have claimed that they had been admitted by the college and their names appeared in the first list. It appears that there was a dispute in respect of the principal of the college and on 11th October, 1985 another list of students to be admitted in B.Sc. (Ag.) year course was published which did not contain the names of the 51 students featuring in these four connected writ petitions. At this place it may be mentioned that the University Examination in respect of B.Sc. (Ag.) year course has already taken place in the month of April 1986 and all the petitioners have provisionally appeared in the examination under the orders of this court. The writ petitions were filed in this court in January 1986 and thereafter a perusal of the record of the writ petitions would indicate this court did not permit the petitioners of these four connected writ petitions to pursues their studies in the college but permitted then to appear in the examination provisionally as stated above some times in the month of February 1986. It is thus evident that after preparation of the second list in November 1986 the petitioners before us have not pursued their studies in the college as their names did not find place in the second list. The learned counsel for the petitioners in these writ petitioner have raised only are point. It has been argued before us that no order cancelling the admissions of the petitioners was ever served on the petitioners and that no opportunity was afforded to the petitioners before cancelling their admissions to the B.Sc. (Ag.) year course. On the admissions to the basis of the aforesaid facts it has been strenuously argued that the petitioners are entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to declare their results. 3. (Ag.) year course. On the admissions to the basis of the aforesaid facts it has been strenuously argued that the petitioners are entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to declare their results. 3. From the arguments raised by the counsels on behalf of the University and on behalf of the Management and from a perusal of the counter affidavits filed by them it becomes apparent that the stand taken by these contesting respondents is that first list was not prepared on the basis of merits of the students and thus the acting principal was forced to get a close scrutiny made of the first list and ask the students to produce their original marks-sheets before the appropriate authority. According to the Managing Committee this had to be done as a lot of complaints had been received that bungling had taken place in the preparation of the first list. 4. The hearing of these writ petitions took place on several occasions and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties we had directed the parties to prepare a tabular chart showing merits of the students who had been admitted in the two lists i.e. first list and second list. The Managing Committee produced before us the second list containing the names of the students who had been admitted and the marks which they had obtained in the earlier examination. From a perusal of the aforesaid list it becomes clear that amongst the general candidates a candidate securing atleast 300 marks admitted and amongst the scheduled caste candidates a candidate securing atleast 243 marks was admitted. We have tried to find out from the petitioners of all these four connected writ petitions the marks which they had secured in the last examination for the purposes of finding out as to whether they are the candidates who could have also featured in second list. However on the hearing of the writ petitions substantial material could not come before us so as to come to a definite conclusion regarding the merits of these students as the marks of all the petitioners were not available before us. 5. However on the hearing of the writ petitions substantial material could not come before us so as to come to a definite conclusion regarding the merits of these students as the marks of all the petitioners were not available before us. 5. In the present writ petitions the university has not approved the forms of the petitioners presumably on the ground that the appropriate authority of the college has not recommended their forms as required, from the facts it is absolutely clear that there had been a change in the office of the principal of the college which resulted in the drawing of two lists i.e. first list and second list for admissions of B.Sc. (Ag.) I year course. In our opinion in order to minimise the hardship on the meritorious students who may have been denied admissions because of the tangle and dispute which was going on between the two principals of the college the Vice-Chancellor of the Gorakhpur University may get this matter examined in detail B.A. authority appointed by him. The authority appointed by die Vice-Chancellor of the Gorakhpur University shall go into the question as to which of the admissions had been made in accordance with the provisions applicable for making admissions to the B.Sc. (Ag.) I year course. As non-forwarding of the forms will amount to cancelling the admissions of the petitioners, it will be in the interest of justice that the petitioners whose admissions may be effected by the decision be a forded a reasonable opportunity by the authority. As careers of a large number of students are involved, it would be desirable that the Vice-Chancellor of the Gorakhpur University gets this enquiry conducted within a reasonable period preferable within as period of six weeks from today. It may M be noticed that an interim report was submitted by the Vice-Chancellor to us which we have perused. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the opinions that a detailed enquiry in this matter should take place after affording an opportunity to the petitioners and the Managing Committee including the present principal. 6. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the opinions that a detailed enquiry in this matter should take place after affording an opportunity to the petitioners and the Managing Committee including the present principal. 6. After the authority submits his report to the Vice-Chancellor of the Gorakhpur University and he approved the same, those of the petitioners who are found to be entitled to the admission in accordance with all norms laid down in that connection will be treated to be the students of the college and their forms shall be accepted by the university and as they have appeared in the examination under the orders of this court, their results shall be declared forth with after their copies are examined at an early date. 7. The candidates of second list had duly submitted their forms which had been submitted by the university and have appeared in the examination of B.Sc. (Ag.) in April 1986. Their results have also been declared and it is presumed that the successful candidates must now be studying in B.Sc. (Ag.) II year course. The fate of the enquiry made in pursuance of the observations made in this respect shall in no way affect the students who have already appeared and who form part of the second list and such students whose forms have already been accepted by the university and whose results have been declared. 8. Before parting it may be observed that the Vice-Chancellor of the Gorakhpur University will definitely take note of the fact that in connection with the admissions in few courses of the Tilak Dhari College specially in B.Sc. (Ag.) courses there have been lots of the disputes resulting in a situation that the carders of large number of students are jeopardised for a fairly long time. This is not a happy state of affairs and in case the Gorakhpur University can evolve some method by which the dispute in these admissions are obviated, the persistent litigation in this court in respect of this matter may come to an end to die benefit of the students seeking admissions. 9. For the reasons stated above, the writ petitioners are accordingly disposed of. 10. A certified copy of this order shall be given to the learned counsel for the parties by the February, 1987 on payment of usual charges.